"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"

Dylan Smith wrote:

That's rather inaccurate. In most of Europe, the regulation for flying
over a city is the same as it is in the US:

isn't the airspace above London class A all the way to the ground?

--Sylvain

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Greg Farris" wrote
This is the first GA crash into a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me
if I'm mistaken) and only the second accidental crash of any plane into a
NYC skyscraper.

How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?


That would be the first accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper.
The B-25 was a military aircraft, not GA.

Mxsmanic,

For most people, airplane + New York = terrorists.


And prohibiting flying over NY would stop terrorists exactly how? I can
just see it: Mohammad Atta calling Osama: "Hey boss, we have to call
the thing off, they've prohibited flying over NY!"

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Greg,

many places in the world
(like almost all of Europe)


Oh? I fly here. Just yesterday right over Hamburg, the second biggest
city in Germany, pop. 1.6 million. Where do you get your data???

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John Theune wrote:
Greg Farris wrote:
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"

The question is not ridiculous.
Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and
many do not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise
abatement considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that
the risk to benefit ratio is favorable.
Admittedly, the risk is not great - even trivial compared with the
risk of other activities related to individual freedoms (like driving
cars and trucks, which claim victims daily in NYC). This is the first
GA crash into a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm
mistaken) and only the second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC
skyscraper. So, what's the benefit? For airliners it's pretty obvious,
with LaGuardia where it is, and for GA - er, um.....

Don't get me wrong, I believe the freedom of an individual to
experience flight over New York is an important benefit, and I
certainly hope the corridors remain open, but seen from a political
point of view... Imagine the fallout if a second accident of this type
were to occur within the next year or so. Unlikely, perhaps, but
certainly not impossible. That;s the risk that someone like Bloomberg
faces today, should he come forth and defend the existance of VFR
privileges.

Americans believe strongly in personal freedoms - many places in the
world (like almost all of Europe) do not even wait for one such
incident to banish small planes from their cities' skies. Individual
freedoms are simply not held in high enough esteem to make the
combined risk and nuisance factor worth it, even if both are small.
The persistance of VFR privileges over NYC (and I believe it will
persist) will be a strong affirmation of the American belief in
individual freedoms.

"Live free or die" - isn't it, Skylune?

GF

What cities do not allow GA near/over them?

DC.

Emily wrote:

What cities do not allow GA near/over them?

DC.

Untrue. GA is still permitted over DC. It's heavily
restricted (to the point where it's killed most GA
traffic) but it's possible.

Morgans wrote:

How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?
--


Well yes, that would be the first one I was referring to. This is the
only other one I know of.
But I may be wrong.

Greg

Dylan Smith wrote:

That's rather inaccurate. In most of Europe, the regulation for flying
over a city is the same as it is in the US: you must comply with the
regulations for the airspace you are in,



Well yes - It's the same as the US in that you must obey the
regulations where you are!!
When it's Class A all the way to the ground, then you may not fly there
VFR at all, but according to your definition you could call this "the
same" because you "must obey the airspace rules.

GF

John Theune wrote:

What cities do not allow GA near/over them? I've not heard of any.

Paris for sure is Class A to the ground. Other cities in France have
rules according to their size, which typically make it "de facto"
impossible to fly over them. It is possible to fly over towns and
smaller cities in France.

I'm not sure about London - I go there often enough, and I've never
seen a small plane over the city - so I'm guessing it goes about the
same way there. Again you do see VFR traffic over smaller UK cities.

Switzerland, I believe, is very restrictive as well.

GF

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Greg,

many places in the world
(like almost all of Europe)


Oh? I fly here. Just yesterday right over Hamburg, the second biggest
city in Germany, pop. 1.6 million. Where do you get your data???


Well, for starters it's published, and publically available. Secondly,
I've flown a lot around Paris and France in general. I admit I haven't
flown in Germany, but I do go to Munich several time a year and the
skies over that city are hardly buzzing with light aircraft (like zero)
so perhaps it's more restrictive than you make it sound?

GF